Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Quality is a hard sell in big tech

pcloadletter.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 165 posts

Re: Quality is a hard sell in big tech

#151

Post by someguydave »

ozim wrote: post #85
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #77

Quality is expensive. Even a fairly minor improvement in basic Quality can double the cost of implementation. But, in my opinion, it’s absolutely required for complex systems, and complex problems often need complex answers, despite the wish for simplicity (which can sometimes happen, but less frequently than people might think). I had an online back-and-forth, the other day, with someone that didn’t seem to be able…

I would hook on quality is expensive take. Lots of people write lengthy posts nagging about quality and usually these people work in qa or software dev where they get paid for it and mor quality is more work safety for them. But no one wants really put their own money. Where fixing even trivial bug is 1h of work because someone has to write requirements, someone has to code it, someone has to check if it works and di…

If “quality” prevents you from going out and laying claim to a big chunk of a greenfield market because you move slower than lower-“quality” competitors, then “quality” will cost you very dearly indeed.

Re: Quality is a hard sell in big tech

#152

Post by Jensson »

__lbracket__ wrote: post #147
okdood64 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> average tenure at big Tech is 1.5 years Can you direct me to the underlying data for this?

Don't know how reliable this is: https://customers.ai/articles/employee-tenure-in-tech-compan... But google around, this number is well known within the inustry.

In exponentially growing companies average tenure will always be low even if the average person stays a long time, so those numbers only works for companies that doesn't grow or shrink.

In the years I was at Google I only saw a few people leave in my and adjacent teams, if average was to leave after 1.5 years I should have churned through several generations but the people I worked with early were mostly there when I left but there were several times more people overall.

Re: Quality is a hard sell in big tech

#153

Post by deterministic »

Most devs agree that having "good" "clean" APIs is important. But will deeply disagree on what that means when designing an actual API.

Same with "good" architectures, "quality" programming languages, "good" tests etc. etc.

"Quality" and especially the prioritization of "Quality" tasks is highly subjective in my experience.

Re: Quality is a hard sell in big tech

#154

Post by ramblerman »

solatic wrote: post #93

As an engineer who cares deeply about quality as an ethical imperative - save it for your hobby projects. There's no such thing as 100% quality in engineering. Never has been, never will be. Engineering is about delivering requirements, on-time, and on-budget. Trying to deliver more than the requirements either impacts budget or it impacts delivery time, every time , and the requirements are poorly defined to begin w…

> As an engineer who cares deeply about quality as an ethical imperative

Nothing you said after that matches this statement.

Re: Quality is a hard sell in big tech

#155

Post by lotsofpulp »

nothercastle wrote: post #131
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always think of BMW, as an example of that level. Mercedes is better, but a fair bit more expensive. Bentley, Lamborghini, etc., are inasnely more expensive. Toyota, Honda, etc. are decent quality, though not at the same level, but are a lot cheaper. Of all the companies I mentioned, Toyota probably makes the most money (I have not bothered to check the financials, so I could be wrong). I guess it depends on corpor…

Toyota is the example everyone uses when talking quality. Honda is not far behind but the German brands are far lower quality instead opting for higher complexity. Obviously the Italian brands have never even heard of the word.

You and ChrisMarshallNY might be referring to different types of quality.

You might be referring to longevity and ease of maintenance quality, and ChrisMarshallNY might be referring to 0 to 60 or some other nebulous driving performance/style/fit and finish related quality.

Price/status signaling/size/speed/longevity/etc, lots of different parameters to optimize for and lots of tradeoffs and lots of customers who optimize for different qualities.

Re: Quality is a hard sell in big tech

#156

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #155
nothercastle wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toyota is the example everyone uses when talking quality. Honda is not far behind but the German brands are far lower quality instead opting for higher complexity. Obviously the Italian brands have never even heard of the word.

You and ChrisMarshallNY might be referring to different types of quality. You might be referring to longevity and ease of maintenance quality, and ChrisMarshallNY might be referring to 0 to 60 or some other nebulous driving performance/style/fit and finish related quality. Price/status signaling/size/speed/longevity/etc, lots of different parameters to optimize for and lots of tradeoffs and lots of customers who opti…

Yeah, Quality has multiple axes.

For basic dependability, there are a ton of good manufacturers, these days. The whole industry has advanced, quite a ways.

But the "fit and finish" Quality (or the car is so fast, you get three speeding tickets when you buy it Quality) are ones that can add serious price to the sticker.

I have a few friends that drive BMWs. They are really nice cars, with a lot of things that I consider "frou-frou," but would definitely like, if I had the money they do (so buying a Beemer isn't a big deal to them). They can afford the premium, so they spend it.

I worked for one of the top camera manufacturers in the world. Their kit cost a lot more than many, and their main Quality axes were Image Quality, and Dependability. Major-league shooters based their entire [successful] careers on our kit. Their skill was the main determinant, but our kit allowed them to do what they do best.

If certain types of Quality are important, then the extra premium is worth it.

Re: Quality is a hard sell in big tech

#157

Post by precompute »

adityaathalye wrote: post #82

I feel Quality is a hard sell in Big Corp. because Philosophy is a hard sell in Big Corp. Without a shared philosophy about what constitutes goodness, there can be no shared understanding of Quality. Like, prefacing a company memo this way [1] would probably be career-limiting. All things emerge, change, and die. I think Quality is the experience of the process. The idea of Good Quality essentially boils down to perf…

That's a great write-up.

Re: Quality is a hard sell in big tech

#158

Post by colesantiago »

layer8 wrote: post #122
stavros wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm kind of sad to see this reaction, because to me the vulgar part isn't what's objectionable about it, but I can't stand the awkward madeupness of the word. "Shittification" would have been bad enough, but the "en-" just makes it cringe.

I think that’s just you. The word formation made perfect sense to me the first time I read it.

Not just him, it's cringe.

Re: Quality is a hard sell in big tech

#159

Post by solatic »

ramblerman wrote: post #154
solatic wrote: post #93

As an engineer who cares deeply about quality as an ethical imperative - save it for your hobby projects. There's no such thing as 100% quality in engineering. Never has been, never will be. Engineering is about delivering requirements, on-time, and on-budget. Trying to deliver more than the requirements either impacts budget or it impacts delivery time, every time , and the requirements are poorly defined to begin w…

> As an engineer who cares deeply about quality as an ethical imperative Nothing you said after that matches this statement.

Reality is a bit more complex than the ivory tower. Real-world ethics is about balancing competing interests, not using ethical concerns as a bludgeon to never deal with messy compromises.

Re: Quality is a hard sell in big tech

#160

Post by ramblerman »

solatic wrote: post #159
ramblerman wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As an engineer who cares deeply about quality as an ethical imperative Nothing you said after that matches this statement.

Reality is a bit more complex than the ivory tower. Real-world ethics is about balancing competing interests, not using ethical concerns as a bludgeon to never deal with messy compromises.

I get that, but what you said is 100% the same as what an MBA might say on the topic. And maybe that's the right middle ground, but don't pitch it from the perspective of a software engineer who is fully comitted to quality, because your pitch is far more jaded.
Post reply on HN